4 ms·
If the hash is doing its job, two similar inputs should already yield completely different hashes and therefore different visuals. Each visual is a representat
by mmahemoff 5y ago
If the hash is doing its job, two similar inputs should already yield completely different hashes and therefore different visuals.
Each visual is a representation of a single hash. If it was designed to compare two hashes, it could simply show a true/false status because the only purpose is to see if they match.
- tene 5y agoYes, that's correct, but if you get similar visualization for similar hashes, then you've got a much larger target to hit in your search space if you're trying to produce a value whose hash has a visualization that's close enough to pass manual inspection, which would circumvent the purpose of this hash visualization.
- mmahemoff 5y ago> if you get similar visualization for similar hashes True if you did, but I don't think that's the case. Even a single bit difference would send the bishop in a different direction and therefore cause a major difference in the count of squares visited. I did a quick test to verify this on OP's site. Just incrementing a sample hash by 1 does substantially change the visual. It's possible two completely different hashes show similar visuals, but I don't think two similar hashes normally do. Hence no reason to re-hash.